Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49648 of 2021 Applicant :- Sakir And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 405 of 2021, under Sections 380, 457 IPC, P.S. Baghpat, District Baghpat.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicants are not named in the FIR. Their name was disclosed during investigation in the confessional statement of co accused Raju @ Riyaju Khan. The police has planted a false recovery. Nothing is recovered from the possession of the applicants to connect them with the crime. There is no public witness of the recovery. Applicants are in jail since 6.10.20221.
Apart from it, the criminal history of two cases has been explained under paragraph no. 7 according to which, they are on bail in both the cases.
It is further submitted that co accused Raju @ Riyaju Khan has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 15.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 35173 of 2021.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail. He submits that the investigation is now complete and the charge sheet has been filed.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicants- Sakir and Mohsin who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.
(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021/RavindraKSingh